Participatory Action Research as Critical Pedagogy

Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. II, No. 6, 1998

Participatory Action Research as Critical Pedagogy

Ken Udas1'2

Received February 10, 1998; revised June 24, 1998

1. INTRODUCTION

Traditional education systems have come under significant criticism during thepast two decades. In the United States a watershed of concern about an edu-cational system that was apparently failing a nation was popularized with thepublication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Educa-tion, 1983). Following the Nation at Risk report a number of reform initiativeswere developed, implemented, and reported including infusion of technology,school based management, service integration, enhanced community and fam-ily involvement, and various curricular reforms (see U.S. Department of Edu-cation [USDE], 1994; 1995; 1996; 1997). Although many positive results werepublished regarding individual projects and student outcomes, after thousandsof projects and initiatives the U.S. public education system is still plagued withschool violence, high dropout rates, and undesirable educational outcomes. It hasbeen widely recognized that the challenges facing public school teachers and thepublic school system are much larger than the schoolhouse and the teaching pro-fession as it is traditionally conceived (Corrigan & Udas 1996; Hooper-Briar &

'Fakulta Management!!, Univerzity Komenskeho, Bratislava, Slovak Republic.2To whom correspondence should be addressed at Rudolf Zellergasse 48 B/3, 0123 Vienna, Austria.

In this paper participatory action research (PAR) is offered as a foundation forthe development of critical pedagogy. The need for public education reform in theUnited States is identified, PAR principles are described, PAR is discussed in termsof pedagogy and curriculum development, and potential barriers to implementationare indicated. PAR's roots in critical theory are explored and PAR is offered as away to alleviate the stratifying effects of oppositional culture, learned helplessness,and tracking. Finally, implications of PAR are outlined for critical stakeholdinggroups. Conclusions include recognition of the applicability of PAR to pedagogy andcurriculum development.

KEY WORDS: participatory action research; educational reform; critical pedagogy.

599

l094-429X/98/1200-O599$l5.00/0 © 1998 Plenum Publishing Coiporalion

Lawson, 1994; Office of Educational Research and Improvement [OERI], 1993).It can be said with certainty that the problems associated with public educationare multidisciplinary, interprofessional, and systemic and that single-minded andover simplified solutions to educational improvement will unquestionably fail.Lawson and Lawson-Briar (1997) argue strongly that a shift from school reformto educational reform is imperative and that any potential solution will requiresignificant human capital formation and authentic participation from all membersof an educational community.

The direction of this paper is to explore the applicability, need, and plausi-bility of adopting participatory action research (PAR) for philosophical and prac-tical guidance while developing a critical pedagogy to complement educationalreform. The intent of the paper is not to thoroughly review PAR or PAR prac-tice, but to point out why PAR might be an appropriate theoretical and pragmaticplatform from which to consider educational reform. The paper moves from the-oretical issues to practical considerations. For a concise presentation of criticalissues associated with action research see Levin (1994). Levin also provides acomparison between action research and critical systems thinking.

2. VALUE REPRODUCTION, MARGINALIZATION, ANDEDUCATION

It seems that the cause of some of the avoidable tension and conflict expe-rienced in many western societies is the dualism created by the popularizationand simplification of complex value-laden social issues that are cast in obvi-ous opposition to each other. The dualism causes tension for at least two majorreasons. First, important social questions can rarely be adequately addressed inpolar terms. Second, the way that the dualistic question is arrived at causes con-flict and tension. A particular group or individual decides which aspects of anissue are most salient and puts forth those notions as the ones that merit consid-eration. The group that has the power to define how the issue is simplified, whatis removed from the discussion, and what remains, controls to a large degreewhich answers and notions can or cannot even be considered.

When a dominant group defines an issue in simplified or dualistic termsthat are not consistent with those of the groups affected by the issue, a tensionmust arise. Not only is the question likely to be viewed as illegitimate becauseit is oversimplified and superficial, but subordinate group members may recog-nize it as addressing an illusory issue. Once the illegitimate issue is addressed byresponding to an irrelevant question, the dominant group can proceed with confi-dence to a predetermined conclusion, while the subordinate group must live withan unaddressed need, adopt the perspective of the dominant group, or attempt tochange the questions being asked. When a dominant group controls much of the

600 Udas

discourse in a society, it can reproduce its perspective by creating social institu-tions such as welfare, education, justice, and economic structures that reinforcethe parameters that define success and failure and isolate valuable from worth-less knowledge and behavior. Midgley (1994) framed similar behavior from anecological perspective describing the process of marginalization of individualsand values based on the perspective of dominant cultural belief systems. Thesum of the illegitimate assumptions, irrelevant questions, and illusory solutionsdictated by members of the dominant culture are distilled and imbued in the cur-riculum of public education that is implemented with a pedagogy consistent withdominant values. In addition, the dominant values are embodied in virtually alladult learning situations. The inconsistency between the values and assumptionsprogrammed into public education and the values and assumptions of subordi-nate cultures leads to the dualism often expressed as the separation of thoughtand action or theory and practice. Children belonging to dominant groups dis-proportionally succeed in the public education system and are able to use theireducation to leverage further success outside of the schoolhouse. They are ableto make the system work for them; the values and assumptions inherent in edu-cational structure, curriculum, and language correspond to action for them. If thetheory that under-girds a child's educational experience is inconsistent with thechild's culture, it does not serve as a bridge for the child between school-basetheory and real-life practice.

The remainder of this paper will be guided by the notion that dominantgroups can define the nature of social discourse and determine the value sys-tems that reward particular types of knowledge. Much of the context and evi-dence offered is based on the disparate success in practice between dominant andsubordinate groups particularly in the United States, but also throughout muchof Europe. One of the primary tools of value reproduction is public schoolingand there is not a set of values and assumptions that can be imbued in a prede-termined and standardized curriculum that will serve equally all groups withina pluralistic society. In addition, children have unique sets of needs and life ex-periences that make them unique within their gender, racial, ethnic, social, orclass group. Therefore, each child's curriculum and means of inquiry must beconstructed individually and be self-guided. A model with potential to meet indi-vidual educational needs is the Action Research (AR) model.

3. ACTION RESEARCH

Action research is a means of inquiry that at a minimum takes its cuesfrom practitioners and results in the instruction of practice. Participatory actionresearch meets a higher standard of participation than does AR in that practi-tioners become both subjects and co-researchers (Argyris & Schon, 1991). Kurt

PAR as Critical Pedagogy 601

Lewin (1948) first introduced action research to the social sciences. It should benoted that the term practitioner, as used in this paper, is not confined to individ-uals who practice a certain profession or craft. All humans practice or strive topratice humanity.

Lewin described AR as an iterative process in which social work and educa-tional practitioners plan for action, act, and then perform reconnaissance. Duringeach of the AR steps, fact-finding occurs. During planning, the local environ-ment is studied through fact-finding, resulting in the identification of issues andproblems impacting practice. Once a problem is identified, an overall action-planis developed and a decision is made regarding the first step for taking action. Theact of planning may result in a redefinition of the problem, initiating modifica-tion to the action-plan. The second step involves putting theory into practice byexecuting the first planned action. After the action is taken, fact-finding occursand reconnaissance begins. During reconnaissance the impact of the action isevaluated, providing an opportunity for the planners to learn about their envi-ronment and the action taken. The results also serve as information to be usedfor planning the next step in the AR process and as a basis for modifying theoverall plan (Lewin, 1948). More relevant than Lewin's prescribed series of stepsassociated with AR is the reflexive and iterative nature of the learning process.The recursive relationship between thought and practice stands in sharp contrastto standard western educational methods and tradition.

The basic AR proces has been integrated into various AR models since itsintroduction (Jones, 1983; Stringer, 1993). Although Lewin's triangle of action,research, and reflection has endured through the decades, a number of otherissues have entered the critique of AR. Issues regarding appropriate meansfor fact-finding, degree of practitioner participation, and the goals of AR havebecome the focus of debate for many social scientists and educators. Possiblythe biggest difference between early AR work in the 1950s and early 1960s,and the work done since the late 1960s is the emphasis on full participation ofpractitioners in the AR process. Research designs requiring full participation areoften referred to as PAR.

Participatory action research is a proper subset of AR. There are manyforms of AR, only one of which is PAR. In PAR the researcher's role goesbeyond disconnected observer and reporter to facilitator and teacher, while par-ticipants are thought of as researchers as opposed to being the objects of research(Miller & Brown, 1986). The facilitator is an active agent in the inquiry process,facilitating and providing to participants knowledge, skills, and resources, butnot decision-making (Cassara, 1991). The researcher does not enter a local situ-ation as an expert, but instead as a learner. According to McTaggart (1991), forauthentic participation to occur participant practitioners must set the agenda ofthe inquiry, participate in the collection and analysis of data, and have controlover the outcomes of the research and the whole research process in general.

602 Udas

Anything short of practitioner control of the entire research process offers justthe illusion of authentic participation (Donoso, 1986; McTaggart, 1991). Thevalues and purposes of PAR are imbued in a methodology.

3.1. Fundamentals of PAR Methodology

The PAR emphasis on practitioner participation and action for local changeraises a question regarding the appropriateness of traditional positivistic scien-tific methodology and philosophy for PAR projects. The scientific notions ofresearcher and instrument objectivity, reliability, and validity are inconsistentwith the goals of PAR (Andre, 1985; Donoso, 1986). Reason (1994) further con-nects positivist research bias with system fragmentation with alienation in socialscience research and calls for the introduction of humanness into human inquiry.The adoption of PAR forces the change of some assumptions about research,including the nature of knowledge sought, methods of obtaining knowledge, lo-cation of research, criteria for judging worth of research, forms of reporting re-search findings, and the intended audience of research results (Jones, 1983).

The nature of the knowledge sought in PAR is for the improvement ofpractice, not for the construction of an abstract theory-base. In addition, the PARassumption of the nature of knowledge is that it is created by local practitioners,environments, and historical factors, opposing the positivist view of an objectivereality in which knowledge is universally true or false (Levin & Greene, 1994).The location in which research is conducted and the criteria used to judge thevalue of research are intimately related in PAR. Participatory action researchmust be conducted and applied locally. The research must serve local partici-pants first, with value being measured by improved local conditions. The gener-alizability of research results is not particularly critical (Cassara, 1991; Schere,et al. 1993).

The forms of reporting findings must be directed by and meaningful to thelocal audience. In the scientific model of reporting, the findings are normallypublished in a journal that is often not read by the subjects of the research, or arepresented at a conference that is normally not attended by the research subjects.Occasionally the research is reported only in a language that the subjects do noteven read, and even if it was reported in the local tongue, the reported solutionsor conclusions would likely have little value to the community (Cassara, 1988).In PAR the findings and value of the research are retained locally, while in mostscientific projects the information is extracted and removed from the community(Gillispie, 1989).

The scientific notion of disinterested objective research with passive rationalreflection on results translates to the socio-technical deductive research modelthat is based on an objective reality (Hyland, 1992). Although PAR projects nor-mally rely most heavily on ethnographic and naturalistic methods of inquiry, the


facilitator must be prepared to employ other methods. The need to be preparedto use mixed methodologies, often referred to as complementarism (Brocklesby,1994), flows from the participants deciding which inquiry methods are mostappropriate under local circumstances.

Because the dominant academic culture is grounded in rationalism and sci-entific inquiry, PAR will always be subject to overt and tacit coercion to con-form to the dominant research model (Hyland, 1992; Lewin, 1948). Brocklesby(1994) suggests that this has already happened to mainstream AR practice inthe United States. Due to the pervasiveness of positivist, scientifically drivenresearch in Western culture, and the conflicting purposes of scientific researchapproaches and PAR, a well-articulated set of guiding principles is needed forPAR practice.

3.2. PAR Principles

A comprehensive taxonomy of PAR principles could become very complex.Participatory action research in its various forms is practiced across disciplines,cultures, and geographic locations. The wide range of PAR contexts makes aninclusive listing of all relevant principles a significant undertaking. In lieu of acomplete listing some general guiding notions of PAR structured under the head-ings methodological principles, participation, action, and socio-political agendawill be covered.

3.2.1. Methodological PrinciplesThe main methodological consideration in PAR is that the principles guid-

ing processes must be participant-centered and non-alienating. Research/facil-itators enter a project clear about their own theory of social change and areable to share this with participants democratically (Hart, 1992). The researchmethods facilitate collaborative inquiry based on mutual respect, trust, poten-tial benefits, and acceptance of each party's responsibilities. To achieve gen-uine participation, research allows a combination of paradigms and methodolo-gies that are sensitive to cultural, socio-economic, ethnic, lifestyle, and life-span pluralisms (Turnbull & Turnbull, 1991). Referencing a stream of post-modern thought, Stringer (1993) suggests that authentic socially responsivemethodology must enable participation, acknowledge people's equality of worth,provide freedom from oppressive debilitating conditions, and enable the expres-sion of people's full potential.

3.2.2. ParticipationThe creation of local action plans must include the participation of all

affected community members, with all members functioning as equals (NationalEducation Commission on Time and Learning, 1994). Practitioners must beinvolved in every phase of the PAR project and must guide every major deci-

604 Udas

sion regarding project direction and application of the findings. Although thepractitioner's perspective always has primacy, knowledge shared by the variousgroups involved in the project and knowledge developed by academics havevalue and require participation for development (McTaggart, 1991). In the fol-lowing statements Stringer (1996) emphasizes the importance of participation incommunity-based or participatory action research when he connects the need forparticipation with the qualities that help make participation effective:

To the extent that people can participate in the process of exploring the nature and con-text of the problems that concern them, they have the opportunity to develop imme-diate and deeply relevant understandings of their situation and to be involved activelyin the process of dealing with those problems, (page 32)

Stringer then suggests that participation is most effective when it:

• enables significant levels of active involvement• enables people to perform significant tasks• provides support for people as they learn to act for themselves• encourages plans and activities that people are able to accomplish them-

selves• deals personally with people rather than with their representatives or

agents (page 32)

It is with these conditions in mind that the facilitator must act to promote par-ticipation in the inquiry and learning environment.

3.2.3. ActionParticipatory action research must transcend the simple creation of the-

ory by resulting in the application of theory (Andre, 1985). Participants mustaddress problems, reflect on their action, and learn for improved future action.Participatory action research must be treated as only a means, never as an end.Because PAR participants may have to justify the action-oriented products oftheir research to others, the mutual problem identification, reflection, and fact-finding that lead to action is essential (McTaggart, 1991).

3.2.4. Socio-Political AgendaParticipatory action research is inherently political. It is predicted on the

democratic notion that oppressed and marginalized people can transform theirsocial realities through education, research, and action, while forwarding theirown value system. People can empower themselves through examining their ownsituations; developing an understanding of the political, economic, and socialfactors influencing their situation; researching alternative scenarios; and tak-ing action that flows from their own cultural values, enhancing the quality oftheir lives (Andre, 1985; Cassara, 1991). It is through action-oriented learning,not indoctrination, that liberation can occur and students can gain control of


their education (King, 1990; Shimada, 1992). Action learning rejects the socialdivision between mental and manual labor, freeing practitioners from inconsis-tent culturally determined rules of practice. Participatory action research mustbe aimed toward social justice, involve critical reflection on practice, questionassumptions on which practice is predicated, and promote collaborative collec-tive action. Participatory action research is not a technical endeavor, but hasmore to do with participation and emancipation than any set of rules that ensurethat the PAR project is technically sound (Johnson & Proudford, 1994).

A web of connections among methodology, participation, action, and socio-political goals provides cohesion to PAR. Dividing PAR principles into fourgroupings is an oversimplification. The principles seep across the contrivedboundaries forming ambiguous categories. The groups relate in several ways, in-cluding: participation and action are part of the PAR methodology; action with-out participation is not authentic; and action without socio-political ramificationsis illusory. Contributions based in psychology from scholars such as Reason,Heron, and Hawkins have connected many of the basic principles of PAR withwell-articulated methods and methodologies. Reason (1988) and Heron (1988)exhibit the connections that exist among participation, iteration, and reflectionwith the establishment of methodological validity. Hawkins (1988) connects phe-nomenology with the principles of participatory human inquiry to a coopera-tive research process called a psychodrama. To pull some of the relationshipstogether, it might be helpful to discuss what PAR is, what its effects are, andwhat PAR is not.

4. WHAT PAR IS AND IS NOT

Participatory action research is a continuing cycle of research activitiesinvolving active participation of practitioners in the process that results in directaction-oriented experience in the local environment (King & Lonnquist, 1994).There is value in both the PAR process and its outcomes. The process is develop-mental rather than deficiency based, which in itself can be an empowering expe-rience for some participants (Jones, 1983). Participatory action research allowsparticipants to review the relationship between theory and practice, and the roleof participant as researcher, subject, and actor. Most significantly, PAR is ameans to uncover systems of thought and action through exploration, self-reflec-tion, and critical review of previously unquestioned assumptions about social andpolitical order (Andre, 1985).

Participatory action research is not what social scientists, educators, andother practitioners ordinarily engage in. It is not the scientific method of inquiry.Participatory action research is not simply problem solving. It is a processthrough which problems may be solved, the process itself having value. It isalso not research done on other people. Participatory action research is grounded

606 Udas

in theory and practice directly related to the participants. It is co-designed, andconducted by participants. Finally, PAR is not a method or technique for policyimplementation. It is a means of self-examination, improvement, and emanci-pation, not an instrument to create a status quo (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). Theconstellation of factors, notions, and principles that describe what PAR is andwhat it is not suggets a connection with critical theory as a philosophical foun-dation.

Participatory action research has been influenced by a number of socialscientists, philosophers, educators, and practitioners. In Latin and South Amer-ica PAR was a major result of a pervasive movement during the 1960s and1970s against traditional social and educational interventions. The movementwas carried on the appeal of critical theory, the perceived irrelevance of sci-entific research, and governmental ineptness in developing and administeringeffective interventions. Although PAR was not guided by a single theory, it wasmost heavily influenced by the work of critical theorists (Haubert, 1986). Thisis evidenced by the importance of the connection between thought and action inPAR, and the connection between thought and practice that Freire (1970) empha-sized and called praxis. Praxis as defined by Freire is the combination of actionand reflection. Praxis without action is verbalism, while praxis without reflec-tion is activism. Neither verbalism nor activism is suitable for social change. Inhis book Education for Critical Consciousness, Freire (1973) describes his suc-cessful application of praxis as a form of critical pedagogy with adult literacyeducation.

The PAR notion of full participation of all system stakeholders is cap-tured in Habermas' work on the importance of communication in critical theory(Habermas, 1974). Habermas' Ideal Speech Situation (ISS) is based in the needfor group or community truth to be arrived at through consensus. The emanci-pation process requires critical self-reflection on action and the conditions thatcreate action. The assumption is that people have to communicate as equals andautonomous beings (King, 1990). Creating an ISS is an important facet of PARpractice.

McLaren (1989), Giroux (1988), and Apple (1982) separately state that dif-ferent economic, cultural, and racial groups need to be understood separately,within their own frame of reference. Social reproduction with both willing com-pliance and active refusal is the function of virtually all social institutions, mostnotably schools. Teachers often place their own cultural capital over that of theirstudents, forcing students to either give-up their cultural capital, identity, and dig-nity or leave school. The abstractions and rhetoric taught in schools have littleuse outside of the schoolhouse to many poor children. Students are often blamedfor their lack of success assimilating to what is essentially a foreign culture forthem. McLaren (1989) asserts that teachers must understand how school failureis structurally located and culturally mediated. This strand of critical thought is


consistent with the PAR principles of locally controlled inquiry and full partic-ipation.

PAR has been influenced by critical theory and adopted by many criticaltheorists. PAR's wide spread adoption is partially due to it being one of the fewmethods through which critical theory can affect the practice of emancipation.As a democratic mode of inquiry it allows those who traditionally have beentreated as objects to examine their own practices. Consistent with Habermas'notion of practical discourse, the participants in PAR employ their own languagein conducting inquiry and learning as opposed to adopting the often alienatinglanguage of experts (Gibson, 1986).

Exploring the nexus between PAR and critical theory is essential not onlyfor the potential philosophical guidance critical theory may provide to PAR, butalso as a warning to PAR practitioners to avoid the recognized weaknesses ofcritical theory. Some of the weaknesses of critical thought and practice includecliquishness that tends to alienate individuals and groups that are outside of thecritical community, conformity to critical theory's own dogmatic biases; elitismgenerated from the belief that critical theory is inherently superior to other the-ory; immodesty reflected in the exaggerated claims of the power of critical the-ory; anti-individualism as a function of placing the group over the individual;the contradictoriness of rejecting objectivity while also elevating the realitiesclaimed by critical thought over other realities; and naivete regarding the lackof importance given to social factors affecting group processes and discourse(Gibson, 1986). These weaknesses may relate to the elite nature of critical the-ory. Although critical thought might guide practice, most of its progenerators arewhite, middle class males with faculty appointments (Pinar & Bowers, 1990).This being the case, it seems prudent to realistically assess the claims of criticaltheory and PAR in relation to their application.

Although participatory action research appears to potentially speak to someof the educational needs of children being raised in a multicultural society with adominant political and social class, is it a practical or desirable option for publiceducation? Is PAR more likely to address the needs of a diverse society thanmore traditional reform efforts such as national standardized curriculum, effortsto increase school accountability, voucher systems, and continued mainstreamingand tracking? At a minimum these are the types of questions that must be askedprior to engaging in serious discussion.

5. IS PAR AN OPTION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

The public education system in the United States has regularly been criti-cized as ineffective and unresponsive since the early 1980s. Sparked by escalat-ing dropout rates, and an increasing awareness of teenage illiteracy, educationalreform has been a stated priority at every level of school governance from the

60S Udas

White House to local school boards. The public school system seems unable todeal with a rapidly changing diversifying demography. Not only is the school-aged population diversifying ethnically and racially, but also family structure hasshifted from predominantly nuclear to significantly single parent or dual income(Children's Defense Fund, 1994). In addition the school system has been chargedwith educating a burgeoning number of children belonging to low income andpoor families. The dropout and failure rates are most dismal for those membersof communities who differ culturally from the middle-class model student whothe public schools were built to educate (Cetner for the Study of Social Policy,1993). Poor, single parent, minority, and non-English speaking children seem tofit poorly into the educational machinery (McLaren, 1989).

As the number of children from non-traditional groups swells, the problemfacing traditional public educational systems will shift from the system beingunable to adequately service a minority of students to being unable to educate amajority of society's youth. Educational reform is imperative, but cannot be lim-ited to adding classes to attain higher levels of achievement in content areas thathave little perceived connection with the lives of many students. The structureof our approach to education must be demystified. We treat the different disci-plines as if they do not connect organically or holistically and the professionstend to treat children and young adults as collections of needs and behaviors thatcan be addressed through fragmented services. Helping children to learn how tomake relations between experience, culture, and self is arguably the central andmost important task of pedagogy and public education. To the extent that chil-dren do not learn to make their own relationships, they are destined to live thereality of others. To the extent that the public school system does not recognizethe unique mix of experience, culture, and self that each child possesses, thesystem fails. Children who can make those relations are able to take oppres-sive and unimaginative treatments and forge them into liberating experiences,whereas children not able to create new relationships will turn an opportunityfor educational emancipation into an exercise in repetition (McDermott, 1986).

Freedom to explore and reach potentials of growth and success for studentsand teachers is reciprocal. Before effective educational reform can be started itmust be recognized that individual students are resourceful human beings, capa-ble of critical thought and entitled to make decisions about their own education.Any teacher or administrator who denies a child that right, or who does nothave that expectation for every student, in effect denies that child a liberatingeducation. No education is neutral. Education will, to varying degrees, promotereproduction of a defined reality and will provide children the freedom to criti-cally and creatively participate in transforming their world.

Education should have choices, and it is imperative that we recognize theneed of students at any age to engage in the real affairs of schools and com-munities on their terms. The heavy reliance on memory and abstract theory in


education can effectively be replaced by meaningful practice. The nature of realphenomena cannot be taught in isolation of the context in which they are imbed-ded. Social self-actualization and self-development are important. An effectiveeducation for teachers and students must include being able to deal with thepolitics of communal and school change (Corrigan, 1987).

Corrigan (1972) refers to Dewey witnessing, over six decades ago, a discon-tinuity between school and society. Dewey's contention was that students shouldparticipate in education as a social process, both being molded by society andacting upon it to mold society. The student nurtured by this type of pedagogyand school curriculum would not be made by history, but would instead activelymake history.

The notions and values expressed by Corrigan (1987, 1972), and McDer-mott (1986) contribute to a liberal school of educational thought shared by manyeducational scholars including Dewey (1916), Haberman (1971), Ducharme(1988), Sarason, (1990), Glasser (1992), and Smith (1994). The point is that thenotion of emancipatory education that recognizes the cognitive ability of stu-dents and unique experiences, culture, and self-concept that each child brings tothe schoolhoue is not the lonely sentiment of a few educators, nor is the notionparticularly radical. But for some reason we have moved nationally in the direc-tion of suppressing the individuality of students rather than celebrating it. Weare like alchemists insisting that with enough time and energy lead can be fash-ioned into gold, while never considering the beauty and uniqueness of the thingthat we are trying to mutate.

The principles of PAR and the positive outcomes of various PAR projectsare consistent with the notions of mainstream liberal education reform. Viewingthe PAR approach to inquiry on the background of systemic educational failurewhich has been termed a crisis in the United States (Lawson & Hooper-Briar,1994) there are two questions that must be addressed: Should the current waveof reform follow in the "back to basics" and national standards model? And ifnot, is a Participatory Action Research curriculum model an option for educationreform?

One of the major concerns related to education in the United States is edu-cational stratification. Experience with traditional educational reform has pointedto its ineffectiveness in equalizing educational opportunities for minority, female,and poor children. A curriculum built on PAR can address several of the issuesassociated with educational stratification.

6. EDUCATIONAL STRATIFICATION AND PAR CURRICULUM

Educational stratification is well documented in the United States (Kozol,1991, Lewit, 1992; National Education Goals Panel, 1992; Texas EducationAgency, 1993). Children belonging to low income families and minority groups

610 Udas

tend to be filtered out of public education at a significantly higher rate than otherchildren (Center for the Study of Social Policy 1993), while females tend to beless likely to pursue math and science education which traditionally leads tobetter paying jobs after school (Keating, 1990).

In Overcoming Racial Barriers, John Ogbu (1990) provides a theoreticalaccount of why minority students construct an oppositional culture to what areperceived as white institutions, and adopt a behavior pattern that resists the val-ues of an oppressive dominant culture. The public education system is generallyperceived as a white middle class institution. McLaren's (1989) account of histhree years of observation in a low-income urban school supports Ogbu's oppo-sitional culture theory. The adoption of a participatory action-oriented curricu-lum would convert the institution of public education from being dominantedby white values to that of the values held most deeply by each child.

While using PAR to develop and support a critical pedagogy the contentand methods of study would be tailored by each child to be most meaningful.For example, if the environmental problems at Three-Mile Island, Love Canal,or Kyiv, Ukraine mean little to children in a particular learning environment,they may design an environmental project around the litter in their neighbor-hood, the condition of the drainage ditch at the end of their street, or the rodentinfestation in a building that they know of or live in. Instead of producing atraditional written research report, the child may record and report the inquirythrough poetry, photography, lyrics in a song, or as a play. The enactment of thePAR principle of full participation in the act of inquiry would make resistance toeducation tantamount to resisting one's own cultural values and interests becausethe inquiry would be self-determined.

Learned helplessness is another condition that creates educational stratifi-cation for students who do not fit the dominant culture's ideal. Learned help-lessness occurs when a child has been conditioned to believe that failure andridicule are unavoidable and cannot be controlled. When children have learnedhelplessness they are frequently unable to control their environment even whengiven the opportunity. Research points to the possibility that children who feelthat they have control over their environment are less likely than children whoperceive that they have no control to be subject to learned helplessness. R. A.O'Brian (in Webb, 1989) conducted a series of experiments involving schoolchildren that indicated that students who experience continual failure in schoolmay learn helplessness that leads to difficulty in future learning. Learned help-lessness creates a paralyzing gridlock among expectation of failure, lack of con-trol, and action. The PAR principle of action-oriented inquiry may break thecycle of expected failure. The cyclical nature of PAR ensures that any learningthat is done while investigating the environment can be used in the next cycleof inquiry. It is impossible to fail. In addition, children are empowered to acton their own terms with consequences they can control. Participatory action cur-


riculum puts control in the domain of the students, empowering them to succeed,instead of conditioning them to fail.

A well-documented stratifying factor in public schools is teacher expecta-tion and tracking (Rist, 1970, 1978). Tracking in most U.S. schools is the group-ing of students according to ability. Many tracking programs start in early gradesin which teachers assign students to groups based on incomplete information andassumptions about the child's likelihood of academic success. One of the majorcriticisms of tracking programs is that they are not flexible enough for childrento move from a lower track into a higher track. Once placed in a lower track,a student has reduced access to knowledge. In most low ability groups the cur-riculum is simple and the pedagogy is centered on memorization. Students inlow tracks are normally not exposed to any critical thought or reflective practice(Oakes & Lipton, 1990). Although it is impossible to eliminate the potentiallydeleterious effects of racism, classism, and sexism in the classroom, the practiceof PAR reduces the effects of low teacher expectations because the curriculumwould not be norm based. The children do not compete with classmates for let-ter grades, they investigate their environment and define success with personalstandards. The teacher/facilitator is working with students to facilitate success,not to filter and stratify a classroom.

Participatory action research can at least address the three stratifying issuesoutlined above that have eluded the solutions offered by traditional pedagogy. Aparticipatory action oriented curriculum has the potential to be authentically mul-ticultural, addressing race, class, and gender issues as well as issues regardingfamily structure, sexual orientation, and many other important experiences stu-dents feel are part of their cultural capital. Olneck (1993) notes that recent formsof multicultural education intending to promote minority success in the dom-inantly constructed educational system are antithetical to authentic education.Although the need for respect of individual and cultural differences is widelyacknowledged, it is not often expressed in curriculum or pedagogy. The criticalnotion of reproduction theory has not been generally accepted in the educationalcommunity, striking at the purpose and effectiveness of multicultural education.Local community control of education has been viewed as one way to affecttransformative change, but has rarely been sanctioned by dominant communitymembers. If communities accepted PAR, what might the curriculum look like?

7. A PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH CURRICULUM

Before inquiry starts, students and facilitators will have to be exposed to thephilosophy and methods of PAR. Ongoing exposure to PAR theory and methodstailored to each child's interests will help prepare the child to begin the inquiryprocess. After a child feels capable of engaging in an inquiry project the formalPAR process of problem identification, action, and reflection can start.

612 Udas

Dilts, et al. (1986) suggested that the PAR training curriculum include anorientation to community development and institutions, a review of PAR con-cepts and methods, and an introduction to PAR program planning. Before con-ducting an introduction to PAR for students, school administrators, and teachersmust have a clear understanding of the level of freedom given to the students.If the school is unwilling to allow students to choose without constraint anytopic for investigation, they are obligated to let the students know at this pointthat their inquiry will be theme guided (de Clerck, 1990). If students are led tobelieve that they have more freedom than the school is willing to give them, theywill likely look at the curriculum as inauthentic and controlled by the school.

There are several guidelines for developing a PAR pedagogy that can serveas a baseline for self-reflection on the PAR school curriculum. McTaggart (1991)suggests that a PAR pedagogy and curriculum: a) reflect a commitment to stu-dent self determination; b) foster reciprocal mutual learning among student, facil-itator, and community members; c) be both research-based and practice-based;d) provide experiences from which students can construct their own models ofteaching, learning, and education; e) encourage exploration of the fundamentalrelationship between education, theory, and practice; and promote critical reflec-tion; and f) promote the application of critical reflection on the pedagogy usedduring each course or project. These guidelines and others can be used for reflec-tion on the PAR process by teacher/facilitators, students, and administrators.They serve as the only reasonable means of self-evaluation.

After exposure to PAR principles, the student and facilitator may discusswhich issues are important to the student. The facilitator builds on the student'sideas and suggests means to conduct fact-finding. When a problem is identifiedthe facilitator might find that some of the other students who he or she is workingwith are interested in similar projects, so the students may form a team and con-duct then- inquiry together. As the individual or group develops an action planand implements it, the facilitator will be available to learn and share knowledgewith the students. For example, if the students are interested in a chemically con-taminated site that would otherwise make a good park, the facilitator may helpthem test the soil. While testing the soil, the students would have the opportunityto learn about chemistry, biology, mathematics, and industrial processing. If theproject became an issue of getting the land cleaned-up, the students would havemore opportunities to learn about the legal system, environmental agencies, zon-ing, and a number of other social and political issues. All of the learning wouldbe relevant because the students would have a felt need to master the subjectmatter in order to reach a real goal, not one contrived for them.

Students and facilitators will maintain journals and records throughout thecourse of the project. It is with this documentation that the inquiry team canreflect on the project and assess how well they meet their PAR guidelines. Stu-dents would maintain a portfolio of the process, the work they do, and their


reflections on the project. Final reports of projects could be recorded and keptas part of a reference library for the school and community.

This scenario could cause some concern to educators and parents. One ofthe primary concerns would undoubtedly regard content. How can we be cer-tain each child is taught an acceptable level of educational content? A secondquestion that may be posed by the national standards advocates might be, Howwill we be certain that all students are taught the same content? And, a thirdquestion that administrators and some parents would probably voice would be,How can we assess the quality of education that each student receives and thateach school provides?

The first issue regarding content could be addressed in a few ways. First,teachers could be given themes in which the child's inquiry must fit. For specificneeds, such as making certain that students can multiply and divide fractions byyear's end, the teacher could try and relate that objective to the inquiry. If toomany objectives are mandated the potential power of PAR may be seriouslycompromised. Another method for providing particular skills might be to offerhalf-day seminars on particular topics, or work the content into some structuredactivity. The seminars or activities may be considered supplemental and philo-sophically in support of the projects being conducted.

The second question regarding national, state, and local standards does notreally fit into the PAR model. The means in which the students will acquireknowledge is through direct contextually sensitive study, action, and reflection.Even if students have a certain body of knowledge, they may not be able toexpress it on a standardized examination. For example, similar knowledge maybe encoded for one child in Native American spirituality, while the knowledgefor a second child might relate directly and inseparably with his or her experi-ence and use of the Creole language. Because of the connection between cul-ture, experience, and self, each student's education will be unique and inherentlyunstandardizable.

Assessment of PAR projects is generally difficult because the objectives andgoals for each effort will be different. The only type of authentic assessmentwould be to refer to the guiding principles of PAR. The unfortunate propen-sity in public education to focus on accountability rather than creativity may beproblemsome. There are also a number of other potential barriers to the imple-mentation of a PAR curriculum that merit note.

7.1. Potential Inhibitors, Pitfalls, and Barriers

Barriers to PAR can be roughly grouped into two categories: practical barriersand barriers associated with the positivist legacy. One of the most commonly citedpractical barriers to PAR is time (Levin & Green, 1994). In many cultures childrenare expected to spend free time helping with household chores or working part-

614 Udas

time to help support the family (Clark, 1983). Practical barriers in the schoolhouseinclude helping all faculty and staff understand what PAR is, reducing or elimi-nating discomfort and the threat associated with changing to PAR, and develop-ing acceptable measures of the school's initiatives and accomplishments (Calhoun& Glickman, 1993). In addition, external socializing factors could create practi-cal barriers for some students. Middle-class youths tend to socialize the values ofautonomy and self-determination, while children belonging to lower-class fami-lies tend to learn the value of obedience. Also, girls tend to be socialized to valuepassive obedient behavior. The facilitator must recognize this and work extra hardto liberate the voices of poor and passive children (Hart, 1992).

The dominance of positivist thought in western culture has colored the viewof what is legitimate knowledge, and which methods of acquiring knowledge areacceptable. The positivist concepts of scientific rigor calling for generalizabilitydo not comport to the qualitative methods of research most intimately associatedwith PAR (Johnson & Proudford, 1994; King, 1990). The positivist view of real-ity tends to judge knowledge systems from a rigid, narrow, and standardized setof values that oppose those associated with PAR. Even with the barriers asso-ciated with PAR, there have been successful schoolhouse projects implementedinternationally and in the United States. Most of the projects fall somewhat shortof all the ideals expressed in earlier sections of this paper and many projectsconcentrate more on teachers than students.

7.2. Example of PAR Oriented Curriculum

The High/Scope curriculum was developed by the High/Scope EducationalResearch Foundation in Ypsilanti, Michigan. High/Scope's mission is to improvethe opportunities available to all children and youth by promoting high qualityeducational programs. The High/Scope curriculum provides a number of guid-ing principles that are consistent with PAR. Active education as promoted byHigh/Scope is designed to teach children and youth many of the essential skillsto assume the responsibility for self-directed learning. The High/Scope curricu-lum for young children is developed and described in Hohmann and Weikart(1995).

7.2.7. Foundations of Active Learning with the High/Scope CurriculumThe High/Scope pedagogy and curriculum draw heavily from the notions

that human development is a gradual process of emergent sequential stages thatare predictable and that learning itself is a development change process in whichhumans create and reconstruct conceptual models through actively experiencingand testing their models. These notions have their roots in the cognitive develop-ment work of Piaget (see 1970) and Piaget and Barbel (see 1970) and educationalprogressives including Dewey (see 1963, 1933).


7.2.2. Human Development as a Framework for EducationThe founding principle of the High/Scope approach to early childhood

learning and pedagogy is that active learning is fundamental to full develop-ment of a child's potential. The active learning environment is developed underthe assumptions that children tend to develop abilities with some predictabil-ity, each child's development will be a unique process, and it is imperative toprovide developmentally appropriate environments to meet the developmentalneeds of individual children.

Educational activities are considered developmentally appropriate if theychallenge the capacities of the learner; encourage and support the learner developunique patterns of interest, new conceptual models, abilities, and goals; and pro-vide learning experiences when a learner is best able to understand, conceptual-ize, and retain experiences and relate what has been learned to other experiences.To best actualize the principles of active learning, learning is viewed as a socialexperience in which children and adults freely engage in meaningful interac-tion. Because children develop unique interests at different rates, learners areencouraged to communicate freely with each other to solve real and immediateproblems. Problem solving situations may be initiated and pursued by childrenor may be adult initiated.

7.2.3. Active Learning CycleActive learning as the driving process in the High/Scope pedagogy is

formed through the pursuit of an iterative cycle of engaging in direct actionon objects in the environment, reflection on actions, hypothesis generation andinvention, and problem solving. The process is exercised on real-life situations ofchildren in which children learn to solve relevant problems actively and reflecton their solutions. The process engages children as active learners instead ofvicarious learners. Because the active learning process is self-determined by thechild learners, adults take nontraditional educational roles. Adults provide a sup-portive, safe, and nurturing environment. The adults are reflective participantsand assume a traditional PAR participant-observer role in the process.

7.2.4. High/Scope Key Experiences as ContentThe High/Scope approach to active learning uses a series of key experi-

ences to address learning content areas. Because active learning does not lenditself well to directed learning on a prescribed set of topics to be covered ina particular period of time with predetermined resources, the content is guidedby general types of experiences that facilitate the development of fundamen-tal abilities. The experiences address the child's social, cognitive, and physicaldevelopment. Key experiences are designed to address a number of developmen-tal areas including language and literacy, creative representation, social relations,movement, music, classification, numeric, space, and time concepts.

616 Udas

7.2.5. What Participants in the High/Scope Curriculum Do andHow They Relate

Children and adults involved in a High/Scope environment will engage invaried intellectual and physical activities. The learning environment will lookand sound differently than a traditional school setting. Children may be observedengaging in the following activities:

• Children initiate activities that are based on felt needs and personal inter-ests to do and learn.

• Children exercise the freedom to make decisions about how to manipu-late their environment and chose the materials they will use and how thematerials will be used.

• Children explore and discover their environment through using all of thesenses they have available.

• Children directly discover and create relationships between themselvesand their environment and among objects in their environment.

• Children manipulate and transform their environment while discoveringthe properties of materials.

• Children use tools and other equipment to manipulate objects in theirenvironment.

• Children discover and exhibit their physical presence by using their bodiesin play.

• Children express themselves through the use of language by talking abouttheir experiences.

• Children express themselves and describe what they are doing in theirown words and on their own terms.

Because self-determined and self-directed learning is promoted, adultsassume a non-traditional role relative to the children learners. Adults in theHigh/Scope environment act as participant-researchers. They help create a nur-turing environment in which it is safe for young children to experiment withlearning and take charge of their learning activities. Cast as facilitators and learn-ers, adults will do the following.

• Adults provide children with the opportunity to make choices.• Adults provide a variety of materials for children to work with.• Adults provide some structure through the organization of the physical

environment and time.• Adults actively respect and learn about children's intentions.• Adults promote reflection and thoughtful action by listening for and en-

couraging children's thinking.• Adults promote independence, self-determination, and autonomy by en-

couraging children to do things for themselves.


Consistent with the non-traditional activities of children and adults, theirinteractions and relationships will take on unusual qualities. Children and adultswill together do the following.

• Children and adults engage in reciprocal interaction that is active andinteractive.

• Adults and children form supportive partnerships and avoid relationshipsof dominance.

• Children and adults learn and grow together through invention and dis-covery.

The High/Scope curriculum could provide an educational environment inwhich young learners exercise autonomy and self-determination. The curricu-lum would also seem to minimize the stratifying effects previously discussed ofoppositional culture, learned helplessness, and tracking. There exist examples ofprograms that have adopted practices consistent with the High/Scope curriculumand other approaches of participatory education.

7.3. Examples of PAR Oriented School Programs

Although there are many examples of PAR that involve practicing teachersand pre-service teacher education, there are relatively few programs that sup-port the self-directed learning of children. The examples included in this sectionfocus on either children or communities that engage directly in determining somecritical facet of their learning.

7.3.7. The College SchoolThe College School in Missouri was initially established as a laboratory

school associated with Webster College. Laboratory schools have their roots inJohn Dewey's famous laboratory school established in 1896 at the University ofChicago, which Dewey described as a miniature society and an embryonic com-munity (Wirth, 1966). Dewey established the laboratory school to apply and testhis theories on experiential and active learning. The College School follows inDewey's tradition offering innovative action-oriented and experiential curriculum.

Active learning at the College School is approached through the devel-opment of thematic curriculum. Themes are integrated into and around tra-ditional class work such as math, communication, and language arts and aredesigned to be age and development appropriate. Themes have included Elec-tion Choices; Mines and Mining; A Cave, A Dam, A River; Westward Expansion;Birth of Spring; and many others. Particular thematic topics and the curriculumare arrived at through consensus of the faculty. Themes are well documentedand clearly articulated, so there is no pretence and misrepresentation that thechildren are initiating individual learning experiences during the earliest phases

618 Udas

of development. There is an expectation that many of the learners will exercisesignificant creativity and develop action-oriented and highly personalized experi-ences from engagement in the thematic program (Philips, Miller, and Robinson,1992). There are a number of examples of active learning at the College Schoolthat have many of the qualities associated with participatory action research asdescribed in this paper. Two themes will be briefly described.

7.3.1.1. Birth of Spring. The Birth of Spring theme was developed for firstand second grade students. Topics were categorized into four areas includingplants, eggs, birth, and bones. Activities and field experiences are designed tolead to learning about the life cycle as a developmental process from procreationto death. Activities include fertilizing, growing, and harvesting plants, incubat-ing quail eggs, preparing a chicken skeleton from a chicken corpse, exhumingan elk skeleton, labeling bones, and reconstructing the full skeleton, and fieldexperiences. Field experiences included a day at a farm and an overnight campout. These exercises and actives do not seem inherently remarkable. In mostschool environments the activities would be relatively passive and the teacherswould largely dominate debate.

In the College School environment the activities are framed in terms of real-life issues and are intimately related to traditional school subjects in such a waythat a nexus does exist between theory and practice. For example, mathemat-ics and planning skills are exercised when the children engage in participatoryactivities in getting and organizing supplies for the camp out. Developing theshopping list and budget for supplies is left to the students. The young learn-ers must decide which supplies are essential, plan meals, estimate consumption,research the cost of products, and create a budget. In Misty's final report onbanana purchases, she establishes that 38 people will consume 19 bananas. Shealso estimates that 5 bananas will weigh approximately 1 pound, and calculatesthat 20 bananas cost $2.16. As an addendum to her report she includes her ratio-nale for purchasing an extra banana. She indicates that she has planned to pur-chase 1 surplus banana in case one of the bananas falls on the ground (Philips,Miller, and Robinson, 1992).

The teachers at the College School help create meaningful experiences thatexpose children to circumstances and issues that they must resolve. The cir-cumstances go well beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic. Philips, Miller, andRobinson (1992) describe some of the challenging issues and real experiencesencountered by students during experiential in-class work.

On a table are some observing cages the students made out of gallon jars to housemoth cocoons. Three students are helping to dissect one of the cocoons to discoverwhat the inside is like before the moth appears. Two others are having a heavy dis-cussion concerning death, murder, and killing anything alive. One says "We're mur-derers; we're killers." To her, the moth dissection represents an ethical life vs. deathsituation. Another responds. "No I want to see if it looks like the picture on the wall.


It's not alive yet anyway." This activity has piqued a scientific curiosity. These twostudents decide to design a grave marker and write a eulogy of the dissected one.Still other students make signs announcing the forthcoming moth event, (p. 7)

Similar issues and emotions are confronted and assessed in a formal class activ-ity. The teachers see experiences, pleasant or otherwise, as real opportunities tolearn and to develop new appreciation for subjects that are normally intellectu-alized through presentation in a textbook. Philips, Miller, and Robinson (1992)describe such an activity.

As the incubators blink on the heat-giving light bulb, children gather for weekly"Eggology" sessions. As a link with their observations at Purina Farm the childrenidentify the parts of the egg and experiment with the effect of food coloring on thoseparts, becoming "egg detectives" and "eggs-acts." Carefully cut shell from an incu-bating egg allows children to see the developmental process of the embryo in varyingstages of formation. Nine giant charts, depicting the growth inside the shell, decoratethe walls. As the cut shell is lifted off the egg and the fetus poured onto the plate,students watch in silence in which you could have literally heard a pin drop. Immedi-ately two simultaneous reactions occur. Some of the children compare the fetus withthe anticipated development pictures in the wall chart. Others are sorry because thisquail click will never hatch. The reaction is understandable! However, the entire classhad earlier agreed that the egg shell operation should take place. The understandingacquired from those few viewing sessions will outlast any number of years of readingabout egg hatches and fetal development, (p. 10)

It is easy to see how these types of experiences relate to serious ethical issuessuch as the right to life, vivisection, and bio-ethics.

The field experiences are directed toward intensive active learning followedby reflection and practice. Children set-up camp, cook over a campfire, explorethe environment, take personal time to reflect and create an expression of theirexperiences. As a group all of the children contribute to the creation of wallsized murals and a newspaper that reflects individual and collective stories andpoems about the birth of spring. The children in the various groups developpresentations and presentation materials on their topics. The plant group showsits understanding of plant development with the creation of dozens of charts,while members of the bone group displays their chicken skeleton and explainthat it has 120 bones. They know because they counted each bone while wiringthe chicken back together (Philips, Miller, and Robinson, 1992).

7.3.1.2. A Cave, a Dam, a River. A Cave, A Dam, A River was a themedeveloped for 15 fifth and sixth grade students. The theme extended over a5-week period and focused on an important political-environmental controversyinvolving a proposal to build a dam on the Meramec River north of Saint Louis.Activities associated with the theme included numerous field activities. Thegroup visited a local dam similar in construction to the proposed dam on theMeramec River, had an overnight visit to a cave that would be flooded if thedam was built, and visited communities to interview stakeholders in the dam. In

620 Udas

addition, the students researched relevant topics from secondary sources, draftedposition statements, analyzed data collected in interviews and surveys, and devel-oped well reasoned and supported arguments for the construction of the dam oragainst the construction of the dam.

Through the more or less guided activities that were planned for the stu-dents, students developed a number of unplanned activities. The actives includedadditional interviewing to get a better and more rounded perspective on the dam,numerous planned and impromptu debates, and extension in the form of presen-tations. Extensions are actives that go beyond teacher expectations, when chil-dren take charge of their own learning. Students may develop projects or formsof expression in which they assume primary responsibility for design and man-agement with little help from the teacher. It is through the emergence of educa-tional extension that the action, thematic, and experiential qualities of the Col-lege School curriculum has the potential to become participatory action research(Philips, Miller, and Robinson, 1992).

7.3.2. The School at YiyiliThis example describes a rural environment in Australia. The school at Yiyili

is the centerpiece of the Aboriginal community that lives there. Dickinson (1985)described the process by which an Aboriginal tribe settled an area in WesternAustralia, and instead of sending their children to an Australian school, the tribebuilt their own Community School. The pedagogy, curriculum, and administra-tion at the Community School are consistent with PAR. Dickinson's report isfull of examples of PAR in practice. Individual community members and groupsinvestigate, act, and reflect on issues regarding curriculum, resource allocation,and personnel decisions. They do this because it is natural. The community isnot inhibited by an externally imposed set of standards and values that other"Australian" school communities are. The community chose to include Englishin their curriculum, not because it was mandated, but because they perceivedit as important. Although English is important, it is no more important to thecommunity than the native and ancestral languages they also teach. Kriol is thenative tongue, and Gooniandi is their ancestral language, neither of which wouldbe offered as part of an Australian curriculum.

7.3.3 The World of Inquiry SchoolThe final example of PAR describes a school located in an urban envi-

ronment in the United States. In inner-city Rochester, New York, the World ofInquiry School opened its doors in 1967. The school was designed to serve across-section of the city's population. Fifty percent of the students were Cau-casian and 50 percent were minority, 25 percent of the school population residedin the inner-city, 50 percent resided in the outer-city, and 25 percent resided insuburban Rochester. The school was organized by centers of inquiry in whichchildren practiced what they learned and investigated their environments (Fac-


ulty and Staff of the World of Inquiry School, 1973). One group of childreninvestigated the ramifications that a nearby polluted lake had on the community.The students interviewed an environmental safety agent, a poet, and a chemist atthe University of Rochester, among many others, to determine the role that thelake played in the community (Dean Corrigan, personal communication, 1994).Although the World of Inquiry School practiced PAR in a limited way, it pointsto the possibility of truly innovative and powerful education. System-wide imple-mentation of PAR pedagogy and curriculum would have significant implicationsfor virtually all parts of the educational community.

8. IMPLICATIONS OF PAR FOR OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

The adoption of PAR by public school systems would impact a wide arrayof public and private institutions. It would put greater demands on taxpayers,school boards, school administrators, school facilities, and legislators, but itwould most significantly impact the roles of teachers and students. Teacher edu-cation programs would have to change significantly to accommodate the newrole of their graduates.

Colleges of education have traditionally prepared teachers in a distinctlynon-humanistic and non-speculative fashion. It should not be surprising thatteachers transmit knowledge to their students in the same fashion that it wastransmitted to them. A long overdue transformation in teacher preparation isneeded to break the cycle of mediocrity that is passed from generation to genera-tion of teachers (McDermott, 1986). There is currently a very tenuous connectionbetween theory and practice in teacher preparation. There is inadequate theoryof teaching, and consequently teaching is viewed as strictly a delivery function.Teacher preparation programs do not inform about the nature of learning, justtransmittal of data. Theory must be useful and relate to experience. Teacher edu-cation reform requires the development of a rigorous practical pedagogy.

Although these and many other calls for reform of teacher education areintuitively appealing and sensible, in or outside of the context of PAR-orientedreform, there is an enormous amount of inertia working against change. Morethan fifteen years ago Corrigan (1981) made a call for teacher educators todemystify the profession by adopting several schoolhouse and teacher prepa-ration reforms. The call included eliminating the illegitimate labeling and cate-gorizing of children; eliminating the misuse and misinterpretation of normativetesting; eliminating overcrowding and the mass process orientation that dehu-manizes education; building environments where conformity and mediocrity arenot the norms, where students can say what they know and what they do notknow and what is important to them; and eliminating curricular tracking, becausethe practice does not allow for the reality of unique development patterns andhelps lock poor children into their poverty.

622 Udas

These imperatives were integral parts of a comprehensive framework devel-oped in an American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)monograph (Howsam, Corrigan, Denemark, and Nash, 1976) for transform-ing education into a profession. Although the content of the monograph wasapproved by AACTE, little action has been taken to move toward the suggestedreform since its publication more than 20 years ago (Corrigan & Udas, 1996).The historical reluctance of teacher education programs and educational admin-istration programs to enact reform may be the single largest inhibitor to PAR aseducational practice.

The tradition of creating reform agendas and impressive statements that arenever effectively acted on is not particular to education. This is a natural con-sequence of professionals from isolated and fragmented disciplines addressingproblems and social agendas that are inherently multidisciplinary and interpro-fessional. The need for interdisciplinary scholarship and practice points directlyto one of the weaknesses of traditional education and toward one of the selfproclaimed strengths of the system sciences and systems education.

9. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

There is a practical and moral need to resist the traditional path of educa-tional reform that is currently being offered in the form of national standards,increased testing of teacher and student competency, and choice in school selec-tion. These reform efforts are dangerous not only because they are shortsightedand incomplete, but because they distract us from the important work at hand.Connecting education, community improvement, and student culture to demys-tify our roles as individuals, parents, educators, and members of society whilereducing alienation and failure is the critical function of education.

The literature review in this paper shows that the principles of criticalthought, democracy, liberal education, multiculturalism, autonomy, and com-munity involvement form a nexus that is represented in the theoretical under-grading and practice of PAR. We as educational professionals, teachers, andlearners who value our children, our communities, and ourselves share an obli-gation to at least entertain the potential benefits and implications of participatoryaction research as critical pedagogy.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to thank the International Federation for Systems Research(ISFR) for support of this paper through the FUSCHL Conversations '96.


REFERENCES

Andre, M. (1985). New Trends for New Needs in Instructional Technology Theory and Development.Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 256 327).

Apple, M. W. (1982). Reproduction and contradiction in education. In M. W. Apple (ed.), Culturaland Economic Reproduction in Education: Essays on Class, Ideology and the State, Routledge& Kegan Paul, London, pp. 1-31.

Argyris, C., and Schon, D. A. (1991). Participatory action research and action science compared. InW. F. Whyte (ed.), Participatory Action Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 85-96.

Brocklesby, J. (1994). Let the jury decide: Assessing the cultural feasibility of total systems inter-vention. Systems Practice 7(1), 75-86.

Calhoun, E. P., and Glickman, C. D. (1993). Issues and dilemmas of action research in the Leagueof Professional Schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, American Educational Research Association, Atlanta (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 360 327).

Carr, W., and Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research,Palmer, London.

Cassara, B. B. (1988). Participatory Research for Primary Health Care. Paper presented at theWoman's Conference, East Lansing, MI. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 342973)

Cassara, B. B. (1991). Preparing Graduate Students to Carry out Participatory Research. Paperpresented at the Research Institute, University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service NO. ED 342 971).

Center for the Study of Social Policy (1993). Community Services and Supports to Improve theOutcomes of Children, Author, Washington, DC.

Children's Defense Fund (1994). The State of America's Children Yearbook 1994: Leave No ChildBehind, Author, Washington, DC.

Clark, EJ. (1983). Improving the Status of Women in the Third World: A Challenge to Adult Educa-tors, Comparative and international Education Society, Atlanta (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 235 349).

Corrigan, D. (1981). Creating the conditions for professional practice: Education's unfinished agenda.Journal of Teacher Education 32(2), 26-32.

Corrigan, D. (1972). John Dewey's legacy to us. Presented to the faculty of the College of Edu-cation at the University of Vermont, commemorating the installation of the Dewey MemorialMonument, Unpublished meanuscript, Burlington, VT.

Corrigan, D. (1987). Some value premises to consider in creating the condition for educationalinquiry. Presented to the Honors Educational Psychology Forum for Creative Inquiry, Depart-ment of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Corrigan, D. C., and Udas, K. (1996). Chapter 41, Creating collaborative, child and family centered,education, health, and human services systems. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, and E. Guyton (eds.),Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, Macmillian Publishing, New York, pp. 893-921.

de Clerck, M. (1990). The Operational Seminar: A Training Method to Foster Development, Inter-national Bureau of Education, Geneva, Switzerland.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education, Macmillan, New York.Dewey, J. (1963). Education and Experience, Macmilan, New York.Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educa-

tive Process, Heath, Boston.Dickinson, R. (1985). Yiyili: An Aboriginal Community School, Western Australian Institute of Tech-

nology, Perth, Australia.

624 Udas

Dilts, R., Mudatsir, H., Mudatsir, A., and Blunt, A. (1986). Research from the Village: An Indone-sian Non-government Rural Action Research and Community Development Training Program,National Rural and Small Schools Consortium, Bellingham, WA (ERIC Document Reproduc-tion Service No. ED 282 673).

Donoso, P. (1986). Participatory action research in rural Chile. About a Week in Nottingham. Themesfrom the Conference of the International League for Social Commitment in Adult Education,International League for Social Commitment in Adult Education, Nottingham, England, pp.90-92 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 303 647).

Ducharme, E. R. (1988). The purposes of American education today: Concerns and assertions. InD. C. Corrigan (ed.). The Purposes of American Education Today: Conceptions of Schooling,Association of Colleges and Schools of Education in Site Universities and Land Grant Colleges,College Station, TX, pp. 9-20.

Faculty and Staff of the World of Inquiry School (1976). World of Inquiry School, Rochester CitySchool District, Rochester, NY.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Continuum, New York.Freire, P. (1973). Education for Critical Consciousness, Continuum, New York.Gibson, R. (1986). Critical Theory and Education, Hodder and Stoughton, London.Gillispie, M. (1989). Research within research: Participatory action research and the literacy class-

room. Focus on Basics 2(2), 8-9 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 306 396).Giroux, H. (1988). Teacher as intellectuals: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Learning, Bergin &

Garvy, Granby, MA.Glasser, W. (1992). The Quality School: Managing Students Without Coercion, Harper Collins, New

York.Haberman, M. (1971). Twenty-three reasons universities can't educate teachers. Journal of Teacher

Education 22(2), 133-140.Habermas, J. (1974). Theory and Practice, Heinemann, London.Hart, R. A. (1992). Children's Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship, UNICEF, International

Child Development Center, Florence, Italy (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 359090).

Haubert, M. (1986). Adult education and grass-roots organizations in Latin America: The contribu-tion of the International Co-operative University. International Labour Review 125(2), 177-192.

Hawkins. P. (1988). A phenomenological psychodrama workshop. In Reason, P. (ed.), Human Inquiryin Action: Developments in New Paradigm Research, Sage, London, pp. 60-78.

Heron, J. (1988). Validity in co-operative inquiry. In Reason, P. (ed.), Human Inquiry in Action:Developments in New Paradigm Research, Sage, London, pp. 40-59.

Hohmann, M., and Weikart, D. P. (1995). Educating Young Children: Active Learning Practices forPreschool and Child Care Programs, High/Scope Press, Ypsilanti, MI.

Hooper-Briar, K., and Lawson, H. A. (1994). Serving Children Youth and Families Through Interpro-fessional Collaboration and Service Integration: A Framework for Action, Danforth Foundationand Institute for Educational Renewal at Miami University, Oxford, OH.

Howsam, R. B., Corrigan, D. C., Denemark, G. W, and Nash, R. J. (1976). Educating a Profession,American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, DC.

Hyland, T. (1992). Vocationalism, competence and Dewey's Liberalism. In Duke, C. (ed.), LiberalAdult Education—Perspectives and Projects. A Discussion Paper in Adult Education, Continu-ing Education Research Center, Department of Continuing Education, University of Warwick,Coventry, England, pp. 40-52 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 365 786).

Johnson, S., and Proudford, C. (1994). Action research-who owns the process? Educational Review46(1), 3-14.

Jones, C. M. (1983). A Researching Profession? The Growth of Classroom Action Research, Moray


House College of Education, Glasgow, Scotland (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 266 138).

Keating, P. (1990). Striving for sex equity in schools. In J. I. Goodlad and P. Keating (eds.), Accessto Knowledge: An Agenda for our Nation's Schools, College Entrance Examination Board, NewYork, pp. 91-106.

King, B. B. (1990). Creating curriculum together: Teachers, students, and collaborative investiga-tion. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,American Educational Research Association, Boston (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 322 111).

King, J. A., and Lonnquist, M. P. (1994). The Future of Collaborative Action Research: Promises,Problems, and Prospects, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Center on Organi-zation and Restructuring of Schools, Washington, DC (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 366 093).

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools, Harper Collins, New York.Lawson, H. A., and Lawson-Briar, K. (1997). Connecting the Dots: Progress Toward the Integra-

tion of School Reform, School-Linked Services, Parent Involvement and Community Schools,Danforth Foundation, and Institute for Educational Renewal at Miami University, Oxford, OH.

Lawson, H. A., and Hooper-Briar, K. (1994). Expanding Partnerships: Involving Colleges and Uni-versities in Interprofessional Collaboration and Service Integration, Danforth Foundation andInstitute for Educational Renewal at Miami University, Oxford, OH.

Levin, M. (1994). Action research and critical systems thinking: Two icons carved out of the samelog? Systems Practice 7(1), 25^1.

Levin, R., and Greene J. (1994). Evaluation of coordinated children's services: A collaborative,participatory approach. In R. Levin (ed.),l Greater than the Sum: Professionals and a Compre-hensive Services Model, AACTE, Washington, DC, pp. 174-183.

Lewin, K. (1948). Action research and minority problems. In G. W. Lewin (ed.), Resolving SocialConflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics, Harper & Row, New York, pp. 201-216.

Lewit, E. M. (1992). Dropout rates for high school students. In R. E. Behrman (ed.), The Futureof Children: School Linked Servies, Center for the Future of Children, The David and LucilePackard Foundation, Los Altos, CA, pp. 127-130.

McDermott, J. J. (1986). Cultural literacy: A time for a new curriculum, the humanities in publicprecollegiate education. In Streams of Experience: Reflection on the History and Philosophy ofAmerican Culture, University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, pp. 180-195.

McLaren, P. (1989). Life in Schools, Longman, New York.McTaggart, R. (1991). Principles for participatory action research. Adult Education Quarterly 41(3),

168-187.Midgley, G. (1994). Ecology and the poverty of humanism: A critical systems perspective. Systems

Research 11(4), 67-76.Miller, N., and Brown, J. (1986). Workshop on action/participatory research. In M. Zukas (ed.),

Proceedings of the Sixteenth Standing Conference on University Teaching and Research in theEducation of Adults, Department of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Leeds, Hull,England, pp. 157-166 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 280 995).

National Education Commission on Time and Learning (1994). Prisoners of Time, U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, DC.

National Education Goals Panel (1992). The National Education Goals Report 1992: Building aNation of Leaders, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative forEducational Reform, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Oakes, J., and Lipton, M. (1990). Tracking and ability grouping: A structural barrier to access and

626 Udas

achievement, In J. I. Goodlad & P. Keating (eds.), Access to Knowledge: An Agenda for OurNation's Schools, College Board, New York, pp. 187-204.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1993). Together We Can: A Guide for Craft-ing a Profamily System of Education and Human Services, U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington, DC.

Ogbu, J. U. (1990). Overcoming racial barriers to equal access. In J. I. Goodlad & P. Keating (eds.),Access to Knowledge: An Agenda for Our Nation's Schools, College Board, New York, pp.59-90.

Olneck, M. R. (1993). Terms of inclusion: Has multiculturalism redefined equality in Americaneducation? American Journal of Education, 101(3), 234-253.

Philips, J., Miller, D. M., and Robinson, K. L. (1992). A Teacher's View of Learning and Connecting,Immersing and Self-Directing: A Portrait of Teaching, Oakland University, Institute for ActionResearch and Professional Development, Rochester, MI.

Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget's theory. In P. H. Mussen (ed.), Carmichael's Manual of Child Psychology,3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, Vol. 1, pp. 703-732.

Piaget, J., and Barbel, I. (1969). The Psychology of the Child, Basic Books, New York. (Originallypublished in French as La Psychologie de L'Enfant, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris:1966.)

Pinar, W. F., and Bowers, C. A. (1990). Politics of curriculum: Origins, controversies and signifi-cance of critical perspectives. Unpublished manuscript.

Reason, P. (1988). The co-operative inquiry group. In P. Reason (ed.), Human Inquiry in Action:Developments in New Paradigm Research, Sage, London, pp. 18-39.

Reason, P. (1994). Inquiry and alienation. In P. Reason (ed.). Participation in Human Inquiry, Sage,London, pp. 9-15.

Rist, R. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophesy in ghettoeducation. Harvard Educational Review 40(5), 411-451.

Rist, R. (1978). The Invisible Children, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Sarason, S. B. (1990). The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform: Can We Change Course

Before It's Too Late! Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Schere, M. J., McGee, B. G. Binder, G., Heyden, D., Peroni, D., and Siegel, B. (1993). Participatory

action research (PAR): What it is, what it isn't, how it's done, what you get. Paper presented atthe Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, American EducationalResearch Association, Atlanta (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 359 224).

Shimada, S. (1992). Liberal adult education and the liberation of adults. In C. Duke (ed.), LiberalAdult Education—Perspectives and Projects: A Discussion Paper in Adult Education, Continu-ing Education Research Center, Department of Continuing Education, University of Warwick,Coventry, England, pp. 34-38 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 365 786).

Smith, G. A. (1994). Preparing teachers to restructure schools. Journal of Teacher Education 45(1),18-30.

Stringer, E. T. (1996). Action Research: A Handbook for Practitioners, Sage, London.Stringer, E. (1993). Socially responsive educational research: Linking theory and practice. In D. J.

Flinders and G. E. Mills (eds.), Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectivesfrom the Field, Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 141-162.

Texas Education Agency (1993). Family and Community Support: Coordinated Education, Healthand Human Services, Author, Austin.

Turnbull, H. R., and Tumbull, A. P. (1991). Participatory Action Research and Public Policy, KansasUniversity, Beach Center on Families and Disability, Lawrence (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 344 358).

U.S. Department of Education (1997). Family Involvement in Children's Education: Successful LocalApproaches, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.


U.S. Department of Education (1995). Progress of Education in the United States of America: 1990Through 1994, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education (1994). Systemic Reform: Perspectives on Personalizing Education,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education (1996). The Role of Leadership in Sustaining School Reform: Voicesfrom the Field, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Webb, R. B. (1989). Schooling and Society, Prentice Hall, New York.Wirth, A. G. (1966). John Dewey as Educator: His Design for Working in Education, John Wiley

and Sons, New York.

628 Udas

Participatory Action Research as Critical Pedagogy

Documents

Transcript of Participatory Action Research as Critical Pedagogy